Archive for the ‘Debates with Matrix/DNA’ Category

A busca da Matrix/DNA num mundo com galáxias dentro de galáxias dentro de galáxias

Wednesday, April 29th, 2020

https://www.livescience.com/hoags-object-perfect-ring-mystery.html

Hoag’s Object Is a Galaxy Within a Galaxy Within a Galaxy (and Nobody Knows Why)

By Brandon Specktor – Senior Writer December 03, 2019

Para quem refuta que não pode haver sistema astronomico como o meu modelo, aqui está um argumento: o que sabemos de galaxias? Por exemplo, o que são os Hoag´s objetos? Galáxias dentro de galáxias dentro de galáxias, mas na verdade são completos misterios ainda, não sabemos nada a respeito.

Para responder aos “ad hominem” attacks nos debates

Saturday, March 14th, 2020

Socrates understood all that sort of trash talk….

“When debate is lost, slander is the resort of the loser”… 

Debate no EvC Forum com minha participação

Thursday, January 30th, 2020
EvC Forum:
https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?Control=msg&m=871207#m871207
From: Matrix/DNA Theory
Message 1385 of 1385 (871207) 
01-30-2020 3:56 AM

RE: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

No, because Science has not designed the right model of UCA, yet. Are there any scientific practical use for your parents as the common ancestor species of you and yours brothers? You had the shape of an unique initial cell as also the shape of the initial cell after abiogenesis; you had the shape of fetus as the shape of reptilians: the shape of embryo as the shape of mammals. But, your parents as your UCA never existed inside yours little ovule universe during yours embryogenesis. So why the UCA of the first cell should be at Earth during abiogenesis?

So, the design of the model for UCA is not for Biology or Physics, it is for Astronomy, the space beyond this little egg-Earth, like your mother´s body was the space beyond your little egg. And why Astronomy did´n it yet? It happens that Academic Astronomy did not get the right theoretical model of astronomic systems, the formation of astros, etc, because the academy is under magical thinking: magic accidents which, instead destroying things, build on new complex things. Like any other non-existent magical gods.

Comparative anatomy between the last most evolved astronomic system from Cosmological Evolution and the first cell-biological system from Biological Evolution must be the unique rational and right method for finding the right model of UCA. I did it, I got a model, I don´t know if it is right, need more testing. But, if it is right, will be very, very useful not only for practical science and new technologies, meaning more useful for eliminating magical thinking from human mind.

It is weird thinking to make comparisons between living and non-living systems. I thought that also, till find that there is no such division between living and non-living when talking about natural systems: all properties of cells are there, working, at the right model of astronomic systems. And there where no “origins of life”, neither here neither other place, there are no “origins”, every natural system is under transformation from pre-existing systems, and evolution. The words “origins” and “life” are big prejudices to rationality because they lead us towards magical thinking with all the prejudices to humankind. Ok, mine is merely another theory, so…


There was no origins of life and universe, astronomical systems are half-alive, light waves contains the code for life and DNA is not a code: Matrix/DNA Theory

Porque minha teoria não é exatamente “as below, as above”

Monday, January 27th, 2020

Teria nexo colocando numa mesa um feto humano e um adulto e apontando para os dois dizer : ” Assim como é encima, é embaixo”? Ou dizer: ” Como era no passado, é agora e será no futuro”?

Claro que não. As duas formas são muito diferentes. Existe um processo de evolução, complexificação, no meio entre os dois objetos que é fundamental mas não está mencionado nestes ditados reducionistas. Os materialistas tem descrito minha teoria como isso de ser uma imitação da antiga filosofia do ” tal como embaixo é encima”. Eles cometem esse erro porque não entendem que os modelos teoricos, calculados, que monto sobre o que esteve nas origens, no passado, ou que estará no fim, no futuro, são baseados em processos e significados e não imagens, objetos, conceitos humanos, ou logica da razão humana. E estes processos em que me baseio são novidades, pois baseados na nova e unica formula dos sistemas. E a razão de me basear em processos é simples: Só existe uma Natureza, universal, e como obreira, criadora, como artista ela possui apenas um estilo, um método de fazer todas suas criações. Este método é o processo. Portanto, esta critica está errada.

O meu modelo astronomico sobre os building blocks de galaxias em nada se parecem com galaxias, assim como um feto não se parece com um adulto. O grau de complexificação entre os dois é muito diferente.

Predictions from Matrix/DNA Theory: Rules to obey

Sunday, January 19th, 2020

A suggestion from my friend:

To Louis Morelli:
You have a simple choice before you. You can spend your life as a crank, convinced of your own superiority and wondering why everyone else is refusing to acknowledge it. Or you can start making actual sense.

So, in the interest of helping you along with the second option, try this: Describe a practical prediction that follows from your “theory” and a method for testing it. The prediction should follow these criteria:


1) It should be an actual prediction. I.e. something we don’t already know.


2) It should be unique to your theory. I.e. it should be something that distinguishes your theory from every other idea out there.


3) It should be practically testable, with an objective measure of success or failure. I.e. no “you have to feel it”, no “if you use your left hemisphere, it’s obvious”, no “the jungle will tell you the answer”.

I’m sure a person as staggeringly intelligent and well-educated as yourself will recognize these as basic rules of proper scientific investigation and therefore have no objection to complying with them.

My answer:

Thanks, I will try it. But, first of all, I don´t think that I am convinced of my own superiority. I think it is actually the opposite – so humble that I never tried to go beyond my humble website. I don´t believe that I found the Ultimate Thru, neither a complete theory of it. I am, always was, a skeptical about humans knowledge, because I think our brain has no capacity to process the higher information beyond our senses. That´s why I am testing the theory against facts everyday, and selecting evidences, but, also, searching to facts that could debunk the entire theory. I am not selling anything, I am not selling myself, I don´t want to be in delusion due my wrong theory, I will not earn anything that I already have, I want the Thru, only that. If I talk about this theory with someone, it is because I am searching more minds joining and helping me in this search because I believe ( yes, here I believe) that if this theory has some thru in it, it will be beneficial to human kind, to our next generations.

Yes, I am wondering why everyone else is refusing to acknowledge the logistic and rationality in this theory. For me it is so clear, could not be in other way. We are systems, these systems has an essence, this essence is the DNA. Atoms and galaxies are systems. atoms and galaxies are our systems ancestors. They must have an essence also. This essence must be ancestor of our essence as systems. I heve applied the formula of DNA to atoms systems and astronomic systems and got how the ancestor shapes of DNA was there. If you go further, you will find the same formula as the single, natural anatomy of a wave of light, like the wave propagating from the Big Bang, what means that the code for DNA was existing before the Big Bang. It means that the first genome in this Universe came as a wave of light. This thesis is more rational than the thesis suggesting that the code in the DNA emerged here by miracles, like the one did by a supernatural God or by the inorganic matter. It is rational. I am wondering why people does not understand this rationality, this logistic. Not about why people does not understand the new theory, since I never explained it in full.

I have selected tens of predictions made by this theory in these last 30 years, that were latter proved. But the majority of these right predictions were scientifically known. I was not knowing them in Amazon jungle. The advantage here is that I didn´t need to do the experiments that revealed them, I saw them mentally by my own. Other predictions are about unknown mechanisms revealed by scientists. They see the thing happening, but they are not able to explain how or why it happens. My theory suggested the existence of these mechanisms or process and explain why it happens. But I never got to talk to the scientist and I am sure he/she will not believe in it without a long dissertation of the whole theory, for which the scientist is not wanting to waste his/her time.

I am dying. I will try, before it happens, to write a book with the must information I can do. For what? What if everything is wrong? Mendel spent his life crossing beans and wrote a manuscript about his observations. The manuscript was not saw by nobody and fell into the basement of a library. Then he died. For what he wrote it? Man, millions, billions of people are being saved due Mendels´hard work. Like me, I think Mendel has not built a family, had no kids. We spent our lives, all our energy to bring to light and feed a spiritual, or merely minded son. We write for the spiritual world, if there is one… dreaming that real people see it for the benefits of our loved human kind. It is good for us because we die in peace with our mind.

But, as suggested my friend, I must search time for trying to find a practical prediction just now…

Consciousness: a natural phenomena with easy explanation

Sunday, January 5th, 2020

Someone asked:

Any thoughts on my short writing on Consciousness ?

The nature of cousciousness is perhaps the most important question asked and searched y intellectuals were it be scienticst working with the brain or philosophers trying to unlock it’s mysteries, the question on consciousness is not only understanding the reason or how we experience the state of being consciouss but it’s also related to the answer to what are humans and how we become ourselves with the gift of being able to understand and reason due to our cousciousness. It’s quite obvious that our unique ability to be couscious is what seperates us from animals and what perhaps puts us in the top of the food-chain. One of the important questions is what can it’s understanding fully give us, can we find out before we actually have a firm understanding of the nature of consciousness and the brain ? Consciousness is intresting because not only does it tell us about something as unique as it is, but can also answer us by telling us a more profound reason for our human existence : Why are we here, did someone put us here, does a God or supreme being have a connection to our presence and existence here on earth ? This can be answered by understanding where consciousness is from, it can be from outside or within our body and how we get it or is it just something natural that arrises from structures of atoms but how can it give rise to something as complex and lifefull ? Can consciousnessbe found in other things such as a bat and can it be detected, one way is if consciousness would be material, can it be recreated where it be in laboratories or in computer simulations can it’s understanding bring new laws of physics ? What implies our massive superiorite over animals, of course show-cast by our immense control and perhaps exploitation over them. Are we created in God’s image so that we can design this universe ? That can also imply that it’s quite a hard task to unlock it’s mysteries because of what the secrets could unveil us and the magnitude of possessing it, about ourselves and intelligent beings in general like are all intelligent beings human like as does it somehow affect the structure of our bodies and brain ? What does this gift of consciousness from God mean to us ? Is this some kind of strange experiment or some kind of error that happened at the creation of our universe or life. Why would we have this ability, Is consciousness even moral, it can bring alot of harm and hardship, why are we able to suffer and to make suffering ? Why would God make or creat negativity it’s a paradox as God can only be good in human mind why would he have bad as a result of his actions he cannot be a truly supreme being without having possible and human understandable imperfections

And Matrix/DNA answered:

Only at 6 or 8 months a human embryo has brain structure for expressing consciousness? Only after 13,8 billion years something inside the Universe has natural structure for expressing consciousness? This difference of time means nothing, it is merely a relativistic issue. The question is: if you know how and why consciousness emerges from a brain here and now, why the hell you do not know how consciousness emerges in this world?! It must be a unique, same natural process.

The embryo’s brain has not created its own consciousness and the first time in the Universe. Neither its consciousness appeared by magics of some god. Consciousness was existing outside and before the little embrionary universe, and since the first moment of fecundation, it was “previously designed” in the genes, coming from its parents, which are natural systems.

So, what is the problem to accept that consciousness was existing before and beyond this Universe, that it was inserted at the event of the Big Bang – an act of fecundation produced by an ex-universal natural system – and it was all this time of 13,8 billion years existing as potential at all our ancestral systems – from atomos to galaxies to amoebas and monkeys – and is being expressed now synchronized with its astronomical scale of time?

If you are watching here and now, facing yours eyes, the process by which consciousness arises, why are you ignoring it as the rational explanation for the existence of consciousness in this world, and instead, inventing theories and hypothesis of processes and mechanisms that never nobody saw anywhere?! Have you seen any magics? Have you seen any matter becoming conscious by itself? At my writings in my website you will see how the known real process has evolved in 13,8 billion years with every detail…

Notice: since we discovered that has an evolutionary link between Cosmological Evolution and Biological Evolution ( between the 10 billion years of atoms/galaxies and the last 4 billion years of plants/animals) and that link must be composed by a network of photons, and after these discoveries, we have discovered that a wave of natural light like that produced at the Big Bang contains an anatomy which is a perfect natural system, and it has worked as a kind of software evolving by feed-back in parallel to a hardware which is the visible material natural systems, we arrived to the conclusion that this Universe full of galaxies is merely the placenta or egg within which is occurring a normal natural process of genetic reproduction of the unknown natural system existing before and beyond this Universe… then we tracked consciousness here in this 13,8 billion years of evolution…

Circadian Rythym: the big puzzle…

Sunday, January 5th, 2020

Without an alarm or other external source for waking us up, what prevents our brains from being asleep forever?

The scientific explanation: You have a really complicated internal clock called your circadian rythym that helps you know when to sleep and wake up. In short you have neurons that run in a loop, activating and deactivating themselves (a bit like a Redstone clock actually if you play minecraft), and similar proteins too that inhibit their own production so they come in waves. Essentially, using these complicated systems and synchronizing them frequently with light and other stimuli, your body can determine when to sleep, when to wake up, how to regulate temperature, and so on. This system would wake us up after about eight hours of sleep by stopping melatonin, and increasing seratonin, dopamine, acetylcholine, and norepinephrine production. Without the external cues though our body has a tendency to drift from 24 sleep cycles to slightly longer cycles (anywhere from 15 minutes to several hours longer, depending on the study.)

What are these self-inhibiting proteins and how does this work? It’s actually called CLOCK (I know, biologists are great at naming things. Stands for Circadian Locomotor Output Cycles Kaput) and it can bind to its own section of the DNA and prevent it from being transcribed. So as more of it is made, the higher the chance it is bound more often and less of it is produced, then as it degrades over time it begins to be produced more and more again, restarting the cycle.

The Matrix/DNA comments: Self-inhibiting proteins and self-activated or self-deactivated neurons?! Ok if you believe in it. I am sure it is not a proved scientific fact. How it could be? Any kind of “self” implies a command coming from inside. Proteins and neurons are merely a bunch of atoms. There are no self-rolling stones. I think the problem here is the conflict between reductionist/systemic mindset. It is an opened question waiting for work by opened minds. At Matrix/DNA world view we believe that all these movements are result of the flow of information/energy that runs inside a circuit of a dynamic formula which can be designed as a simple diagram software. It happens that we are detecting this formula every time we see a new natural system. This formula is the software behind a fundamental unit of information of DNA ( two lateral opposite nucleotides), it is the template of brain anatomy, as well the template of any building blocks of astronomic systems. So, the circadian rythym in a human body is produced at same time by the bigger astronomic fractal as the smaller genetic DNA fractal totally synchronized. The formula is the master, neurons and proteins are the soldiers. Soldiers at work are not self-something. But, like the reductionist can not show the internal trigger of selfies in neurons and proteins, we can not show also the internal and external formula, which must be composite by a network of photons.

SirWallaceIIofReddit – answering to Matrix/DNA comments:

They are definetely real, like just finished reading about them in my text books real. The proteins work like I described in my other comment, inhibiting the DNA that codes for them, but I did oversimplify the neurons thing. They are actually cirquits of neurons. The super simplified version would be a two neuron systems. One of them is inhibitory and one excitatory, and both send signals to the other. The excitatory one activates, activating the inhibitory one, which deactivated the excitatory one, which stops activating the inhibitory one, and so on and so forth, creating a reliable rhythm. As for the second half of your post I’m a little confused, could you try to explain it a different way?

MatrixDNA answering to SirWallace:

I agree with your description about what we see, our disagrement is about the explanation and the primary causes. I think that it would be good for you trying to look at a new perspective of the brain – which is at my website ( I don’t want divulgation here but there is no other way). It has a lot of food for thought and new discoveries. The brain is itself a natural system and all natural systems are build by a unique natural formula, which is at my website. Then, if you superpose the brain’s anatomy upon the formula, you can see the systemic circuit flowing and activating glandules, neurons, proteins, etc. The hippocampus is upon F1 and the cortex is upon F4. Pay attention that the formula is divided into two halves. The left side is energy up, the right side begins entropy, so, is energy down. So, a neuron is not inhibitory or excitatory by itself, it is the systemic flow that control them; if the flow is up, the neuron is activated while the other os kept entropically null. When a protein ( or the code for it) meets its counterpart of the other half, both are out. I know that you will not understand it now, it is not a complex issue, but it is different from everything we have learned. In theory, it has worked very well for me… Cheers…

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ejsa6q/without_an_alarm_or_other_external_source_for/

Porque os outros entendem errado o que digo? Como consertar isso…

Thursday, December 12th, 2019

Nunca ninguém entendeu uma virgula quando tentei explicar algum aspecto deste mundo pela perspectiva da visão do mundo da Matrix/DNA Theory. Então resolvi me acocorar sobre este problema para elucida-lo. Alem da conhecida resistência das crenças instaladas ao que se lhes opõe, encontrei o seguinte:

ENTRE O QUE VOCÊ PENSA, O QUE QUER DIZER, O QUE DIZ, O QUE A OUTRA PESSOA OUVE E COMO ELA INTERPRETA: SÃO CINCO CHANCES PARA UM MAL-ENTENDIDO.

SEMPRE QUE PUDER, TESTE SE A OUTRA PESSOA ENTENDEU SUAS PALAVRAS IGUAL A COMO VOCÊ AS ENTENDEU… E O MESMO VALE PARA QUEM OUVE.

A humanidade sofre prejudicada por esse conjunto de defeitos nas comunicações entre os humanos. Então temos mais um problema para consertar. E como vamos eliminar este problema? Minha teoria:

Acho que a Ciência com seu MRI (mapeamento cerebral) vai resolver isso e explico porque: Seu pensamento é um fluxo químico-energético que percorre varias regiões do cérebro e termina como um tipo único, especifico, de circuito elétrico, armazenado na memória. Então você resolve externalizar este pensamento na memória através do som de palavras. Da memoria sai o circuito que vai para a região da linguagem. Chega aqui como um design, um projeto de construção e os neurônios tentarão construir o edifício sônico com os recursos de palavras que tem. Onde faltam palavras para se encaixarem, vão as falhas. Então o agora mapa de som vai para as cordas vocais, lingua, maxilares, mas entre o que o maestro quer e o que os músicos com recursos limitados produzem, ocorre outra diferença.

Então o que você diz bate em outro cérebro cujas configurações neuroniais modeladas por diferente genética e experiencias de vida vai distorcer o circuito ainda mais. No outro cérebro este circuito é analisado sob a diferente perspectiva que remodela o circuito, resultando na interpretação final do ouvinte. Por isso todos os grandes lideres realmente bem intencionados descobriram horrorizados que seus seguidores foram motivados por outro interesse que não o do mestre… O MRI vai rastrejar esse circuito fluxo do pensamento em todas estas etapas e detectar as mudanças…

Os três maiores problemas da Humanidade: morte individual, extinção da especie, má qualidade de vida. Confronto entre as visões de mundo acadêmica e a minha.

Saturday, November 30th, 2019

Nick Bostrom|TEDGlobal 2005

A philosophical quest for our biggest problems

Meu post nos comentários da palestra em 30/11/19

Modern academic philosophy under the materialist mechanistic reductionist atmosphere dominated by Physics and Math loose the ability to be the inquirer of existential meaning. I feel it as a naturalist philosopher living at Amazon jungle, getting my answers direct from virgin Nature and making comparisons with the mindset of my no-more-fellows naturalist philosophers from urban civilization. My two cents here are:
1) Natural evolution drove a million monkeys to work as genes building the human species. Now it is driving 8 billion humans to work as genes building the embryo of a conscious being specie. Between two species there is transcendent transformation, not death. Individual death is not a problem to the “Gaia” embryo nurtured inside and by the individuals. But… a human brain configured by this mechanistic materialist world view can not grasp, accept and understand the conscious software running as mind like the hardware of this computer can not know the origins and the meaning of the outsider mentalized origins of the Windows software running it.
2) Humans bodies are natural systems. There is only one natural system in this Universe running and growing under evolution. It was an atom, evolved into galaxy shape, then into cell system shape, now is going towards a “consciousness system” shape. But… this system has free will, it can choose to be a closed system in itself or an opened system. Closed systems dies, are discarded by Nature because they close its own door to evolution. And the pursue of “happiness” suggested by Bostrom is the way towards closed systems, going into the Admirable New World of Huxley under the rules of the Big Brother of Orwell.
Genes self-projects themselves as the individuals they build, for building the next species. They are hard-working under the rules of the genes emitted by the unknown ex-machine system that triggered the Big Bang as an act of fecundation. Galaxies and dinosaurs went the wrong way, so, is going Bostrom…

A evolução (ou a seleção natural?) recompensa, favorece, quem interpreta a realidade de forma errada…

Friday, November 8th, 2019

xxxxx

Nesta brilhante palestra de um renomado neurocientista que esta chamando atenção por suas surpreendentes teorias sobre auto-consciência, proferida no TED TALK ( com link abaixo), um de seus inusitados insights é que a evolução esconde de nos a realidade dos objetos e do ambiente para nossa sobrevivência e própria evolução. Com o tempo ela mostra a realidade de um objeto e como estávamos enganados. O que serve também para nossa aprendizagem e evolução. Um exemplo foi sugerir a nós que o SOL se move a nossa volta, e depois corrigir essa ilusão de ótica. Mas então nas teorias do Dr. Hoffman percebi que estão encriptadas como resultados dos meus cálculos a 30 anos atras, e que eu vinha tratando estes temas como questões ainda a resolver dentro da cosmovisão da Matrix/DNA, enquanto o Dr. Hoffman denomina as mesmas questões como “teorias”. Vejamos:

 

Eu sempre fui um perdedor na competição por bens materiais, riqueza, confortos da vida. As três classes sociais sempre interpretaram cada fenômeno natural de forma diferente que is interpreto. Todas as três classes me suplantaram no quesito material. Obviamente isto me levou a uma conclusão: eu vejo a realidade de form errada, os outros humanos a veem de forma correta. Então, se eu vivesse na Idade Antiga, suspeito que estaria endo o Sol parado e a Terra girando, enquanto todos os outros interpretariam ao contrario. Todos os outros estariam ajustados ao sistema social – fosse este monarquia, feudalismo, capitalismo, etc. – o que os faria ganhar de mim em todas as competições pelos recursos materiais. Mas… depois se comprovou que todos estavam errados… o que comprovaria que quem viu ao contrario, era quem estava certo. E este paradoxo me ocupou a mente por muito tempo. Pois por mais estupido que pareca, eu não consigo aceitar que estou errado nas minhas interpretações. Fiz e refiz milhares de vezes meus cálculos, os resultados são sempre os mesmos, as mesmas interpretações. E tenho uma convicção intima de que eu estou do lado da logica, não da logica dos outros humanos, mas da logica da natureza, do mundo real. Vejamos um primeiro exemplo: O evento do Big Bang foi uma explosão, e foi uma explosão sem uma meta racional, e explosão de algo muito mais simples e menor do que o Universo de hoje. esta a interpretação dos outros humanos. Para mim não foi uma explosão e sim o rompimento de uma membrana contendo algo, havia uma meta racional pois foi um ato de fecundação do qual se reproduzira’ aquilo que produziu o rompimento, e aquilo que produziu o rompimento, ou Big Bang, tem que ter sido maior e mais complexo do que o Universo hoje. Tudo ao contrario. Então sou inicialmente conduzido a acreditar que estou errado. E refiz os cálculos da evolução universal iniciando pelo Big Bang e calculando tudo ate hoje e depois os cálculos iniciando ao que temos hoje regredindo ao Big Bang. E sempre os resultados apontam a minha mesma interpretação. Então comparo meus cálculos com os cálculos dos outros humanos. E nos cálculos vejo as diferenças. Calculamos diferentemente. Eles usam mais a Física e a Matemática, eu uso mais a Biologia e o Ciclo Vital. Eles usam os mecanismos da teoria da evolução darwiniana, eu uso os mecanismos da teoria da evolução macro universal, e assim por diante. Mas não posso rejeitar meus cálculos e aceitar os deles. Porque o meu Big Bang foi um evento exatamente igual a um evento que meus olhos assistem hoje, aqui e agora, toda vez que uma nova vida é concebida. E então meus cálculos aplicam os mecanismos e processos da concepção aqui e agora em todos os estagios da evolução ou da Historia intermediaria entre o Big Bang e o resultado final dessa Historia, os fatos e a vida que aqui existem agora. Por outro lado, a interpretação deles do que foi o Big Bang, os calculos que aplicam sobre o Big Bang para interpretarem como foi a Historia Universal, não poderia jamais, pela logica natural e exercício racional, produzir a vida e os fatos que existem aqui e agora. Então não tenho como mudar minha interpretação. Se não for descoberto um fenômeno real, comprovado, derrubando minha interpretação, não tem outra alternativa senão a de morrer crendo que estou certo. Mesmo que no fundo minha consciência sussurra que não posso estar certo, pois todos os outros não poderiam estarem errados, e eu, o unico certo. Com isso, vou morrer sendo o perdedor, na competição material. Simplesmente porque a minha cosmovisão me obriga a me comportar perante o mundo com outros valores diferentes daqueles da competição com que os vencedores estão se comportando e vencendo. Passados 30 anos com este paradoxo em mente, eis que acontece algo que vem trazer nova maneira de pensar isso. Trata-se das teorias do Doutor Donald Hoffman, e alguns outros, que eu desconhecia e tive contacto numa questão levantada na secção ask/philosopher do REDDIT, que apontava para a obra do Doutor Hoffman. Dentre os surpreendentes insights do Dr Hoffman estavam uns dois ou tres conceitos chaves. ” A evolução recompensa aquele que vê a realidade de forma errada”. Na verdade, e ainda no inicio do estudo de sua obra, concluo que o Dr. Hoffman esta dizendo que vemos a interface apenas da realidade, nada vemos do que esta por trás e por dentro da interface. Por exemplo alguém apresenta duas pessoas lado a lado e diz que uma é a pessoa mais bonita da especie humana, enquanto a outra é a mais feia. Mas se tirássemos a pele total das duas pessoas, apareceria uma massa de carne vermelha com fibras e muito sangue, algumas pontas de ossos, e não veríamos mais as qualidades de bonito ou feio, pois as duas pessoas seriam iguais. São as peles e seus enchimentos de gordura que fazem as duas pessoas diferentes em relação a estética preferida pelos valores humanos? Valores humanos! E aqui vem o segundo importante insight do Dr. Hoffman: nas nossas interpretações, nos distorcemos a realidade de acordo com nossas “aptidões intimas”. Nos tínhamos que nos ar importância para nos diferenciar dos animais irracionais, então criamos as religiões colocando o humano no centro da criação e o lar onde vive os humanos, estável, parado, no centro do Universo. Talvez ate nossos olhos vissem a realidade, que o Sol não esta se movendo a nossa volta, mas quando a imagem do que víamos viajava dos olhos na direção do neocortex, um bilhão de neurônios e outro tanto de sinapses atuavam nos sinais transmitindo a imagem, e no final a imagem chegava ao cérebro de forma torcida. Este mecanismo é diferente do mecanismo da “visão” de uma maquina fotográfica, que tem uma câmera similar, mas a imagem é revelada tao como ela se apresenta. Entre os sinais da imagens que entra na lente e o filme no fim da câmera que revela a imagem não existem os bilhões de neurônios e sinapses atuando sobre estes sinais. Estes neurônios e sinapses – e isso não foi dito pelo Dr. Hoffmam – a meu ver – são os agentes da desinformação produzidos pela desinformação de que o humano é o fator central do universo, mas que assim foram selecionados pela evolução porque essa mentira tornava o humano mais apto a sobreviver com mais força, energia e motivação. Do que ele agiria se soubesse que não é um animal diferente dos outros e portanto teria depressão, tornando-se desmotivado e fraco. Raios! E agora? Como fica? Isto seria a explicação exata do porque sou o perdedor interpretando o mundo de forma diferente, e talvez mais sintonizada com a realidade…? Os meus valores, que emergem da minha cosmovisão ( somos 8 bilhões de genes semi-conscientes construindo um embrião de auto-consciência, etc.), não me levam a depressão, ao contrario, eles tem me provido com energia sem igual, uma motivação que tem me mantido vivo e mentalmente mais eficiente que muitos dos que me rodeiam. Porem meus valores me conduzem, a meus comportamentos, em outra direção, e deste conflito, onde sou um contra todos, obviamente sou o perdedor. Ou eu estou fazendo exatamente o mesmo que fizeram os antigos? Criando uma cosmovisão errada, com uma religião errada, para me iludir inconscientemente escondendo minha fraqueza física, e isso me deu força, saúde e motivação para sobreviver e ate chegar ao fim da vida melhor que a maioria? Se for isso, novamente a evolução recompensa quem vê a realidade distorcida. Ela me favoreceu, sobrevivi e me coloquei numa zona de conforto. Bem… eu não tenho como resolver isto. Acho que ninguém mais tem, apenas o tempo, com suas novas informações, pode ser o juiz que decidira quem esta certo ou errado. Então o que deve me interessar agora é entrar mais fundo na pesquisa das teorias do Dr. Hoffman. O que ele fornece como exemplo comprovado de que a evolução favorece o erro? Vamos iniciar por uma de suas palestras no TED TALK. https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as_it_is#t-760280

Nos vemos a realidade tal como ela é?

xxxxx

Copio aqui um comentário e minha resposta que foram postados abaixo da palestra e que serve para expor mais das minhas teorias sobre o tema:

Mohammad Abbasi

Posted 20 days ago

It was great, especially when he compared our perception of reality to the 3D desktop, But his words were contradictory. On the one hand, he acknowledged that beetles were at risk of extinction due to limitations in reality detection. But on the other hand, he said that simulations assess the limitations of knowing reality for positive survival and evolution. Perhaps the simulations are not yet complete.

 Louis Morelli

Posted at 11/9/19

Mohammad, I have a hypothesis suggesting the advantage for evolution making us with limitations in reality detection without these limitations bringing to us the risk of extinction and at the same time driving us to positive evolution. Think that humans are like genes. How genes knows to change a fetus into an embryo, if they doesn’t have any design for embryos?

While they are working on the fetus, they have hidden particles-bits-information with the design for embryo. These bits are our neurons, which knows the shape of the next shape of embryo. Then, the bits at genes and neurons at humans take the reality that arrives to our eyes and transform the image into a interface ( the shape of the embryo) before the image arriving to neocortex.

There are no natural risks: the bottles does not belong to the natural world of the beatles, and the statue is not a natural thing in the world of that bull…

I got this hypothesis 30 years ago because my calculations building a new worldview ( The Matrix/DNA cosmovision) were suggesting that “in this Universe is happening a genetic process of reproduction of the unknown thing that triggered the Big Bang as an act of fecundation”. If this theory is right, we, humans are like genes building an embryo of consciousness… we are, like genes, programed to do it, that’s why neurons does what they do. Nature shows as interface the most beautiful template of the embryo instead the most ugly reality of the fetus which is the real environment…